Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

Rainforest said:
I get you point. However, that arms-length relationship may be hard to maintain, precisely due to the high visibility of the transit file.

Any act passed by, say, the Provincial assembly and giving powers to the transit authority, can be later repelled or amended by the same Provincial assembly, if the public is unhappy with the direction the transit authority is taking.

To my knowledge, arms-length public bodies work better in areas that are important but less visible. Nobody demands that Bank of Canada raises or lowers its lending rate, because nobody except a few wizards understands how that rate works. But, everyone thinks they know how to build transit.
Click to expand...
I share your caveats about a quasi-independent transit body. There could be problems and there would certainly be structuring issues. But I think most rational and informed people would agree that our current, hyper-politicized system with two levels of government as planning decision makers, and three levels of government as funding bodies, each driven by its own political cycle, simply hasn’t worked and will never work in the future. If insanity is continuing to do make the same mistake over and over and over, then we’re simply insane to give any Mayor and Council any voice in transit planning, construction, and operations.
 
In the mean time a Bay Street subway could also be built that would open a lot sooner. The new platform could go in the concourse level so there’d be a Bay, Lower Bay, and an Upper Bay.
 
M II A II R II K said:
In the mean time a Bay Street subway could also be built that would open a lot sooner. The new platform could go in the concourse level so there’d be a Bay, Lower Bay, and an Upper Bay.
Click to expand...
The key to Bay, or the DRL for that matter, is to make the subway as shallow as possible. Not only is it much less expensive, it is much more convenient - especially downtown where more people would be inclined to use it for a few stops.
The question to ask is if there are 3 or 4 PATH crossings of the subway route, should the entire subway be lowered or can the PATH routes be lowered?

When a Spadina, or St. Clair, or Harbourfront LRT needs to have an underground station - it seems they realize the importance of being shallow. Somehow this is forgotten for subway planning.
 
pman said:
I share your caveats about a quasi-independent transit body. There could be problems and there would certainly be structuring issues. But I think most rational and informed people would agree that our current, hyper-politicized system with two levels of government as planning decision makers, and three levels of government as funding bodies, each driven by its own political cycle, simply hasn’t worked and will never work in the future. If insanity is continuing to do make the same mistake over and over and over, then we’re simply insane to give any Mayor and Council any voice in transit planning, construction, and operations.
Click to expand...

I concur that the current system doesn't work well.
 
BurlOak said:
The key to Bay, or the DRL for that matter, is to make the subway as shallow as possible. Not only is it much less expensive, it is much more convenient - especially downtown where more people would be inclined to use it for a few stops.
The question to ask is if there are 3 or 4 PATH crossings of the subway route, should the entire subway be lowered or can the PATH routes be lowered?

When a Spadina, or St. Clair, or Harbourfront LRT needs to have an underground station - it seems they realize the importance of being shallow. Somehow this is forgotten for subway planning.
Click to expand...

Hope it works. However, the problem isn't just the PATH tunnels. There are lots of other utilities that have to be relocated to make the new subway shallow.
 
M II A II R II K said:
In the mean time a Bay Street subway could also be built that would open a lot sooner. The new platform could go in the concourse level so there’d be a Bay, Lower Bay, and an Upper Bay.
Click to expand...

Not sure that helps much. The cost would be comparable to the easterly Relief Line, while the potential would be lower (the route for extension north of Bloor isn't obvious).
 
Rainforest said:
Hope it works. However, the problem isn't just the PATH tunnels. There are lots of other utilities that have to be relocated to make the new subway shallow.
Click to expand...

By default, it has to be underneath Line 1, Line 2 and PATH; plus there is Don River to contend with (forget about punching a portal through the West Donlands FPL, for one). Deep tunnels for urban aren't that rare. I mean, by all means investigate whether there are sections that can be built closer to the ground or built through other manners, but recognize that there are limitations as well.

AoD
 
Last edited:
We can thank the leadership of Mayor John Tory for this

Former chief planner Jennifer Keesmaat:
"There are moments when nobody is working on the relief line because they’re working on SmartTrack. There are moments when less people are working on SmartTrack because they’re working on Waterfront LRT."
​
https://t.co/KEnDlrxRof
 
Rainforest said:
Not sure that helps much. The cost would be comparable to the easterly Relief Line, while the potential would be lower (the route for extension north of Bloor isn't obvious).
Click to expand...

From Union Station, follow Bay St north To Davenport Rd. Turn North onto Avenue Rd. North of the 401, follow the curve of the park to Bathurst St. Follow Bathurst to highway 7. Turn east and stop at Richmond Hill Centre. As an added bonus, extend the line along Queen's Quay to Bathurst and then go to the Island Airport.

Really, just draw a straight line.

This would give a reason for the Sheppard Line to be extended west as well.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
We can thank the leadership of Mayor John Tory for this

Former chief planner Jennifer Keesmaat:
"There are moments when nobody is working on the relief line because they’re working on SmartTrack. There are moments when less people are working on SmartTrack because they’re working on Waterfront LRT."
​
https://t.co/KEnDlrxRof
Click to expand...

The Relief Line should be fast tracked, with all available funds and resources directed at it's completion. No matter where you live, it's the one subway project which will dramatically improve the subway travel for everyone.

It's frustrating that we have the main line of the subway plagued with severe crowding issues and delays, yet we're continuing to pour billions into infrastructure that won't justify it's existence for many, many decades.

The RL was needed decades ago.
 
Last edited:
syn said:
The Relief Line should be fast tracked, with all available funds and resources directed at it's completion. No matter where you live, it's the one subway project which will dramatically improve the subway for everyone.

It's frustrating that we have the main line of the subway plagued with severe crowding issues and delays, yet we're continuing to pour billions into infrastructure that won't justify it's existence for many, many decades.

The RL was needed decades ago.
Click to expand...

Its not this simple.

Even if we fast tracked the DRL, it would take, 9 years vs 13, and cost twice as much.

Fast tracking isn't some magical wand you wave and then suddenly things happen faster. It means paying lots of people extra money for prioritizing work. Anytime you want something faster you pay the price.

There are also huge engineering feats for this subway. It will be lower in the ground and go under more high development complexes (big skyscrapers) than any subway has been done in Canada. Tons of things, like the Enwave water system, hydro, gas, sewer, etc will have to be relocated and dealt with. Just because you dig deep it doesnt solve every problem avoiding this, you need ventilation shafts, emergency exits, stations etc.

Funneling all our money will mean the DRL will now cost $12 billion, rather than $6, for the portion from Queen to Pape, and will be here in 2027 instead of 2031.

Great, now we don't have any other transit solutions in the interim, and meanwhile the Yonge subway is getting worse, worse, worse.

We need the DRL, as well as solutions now, and in the meantime, like ATC, GO RER with full fare integration, express buses, on and off peak pricing, etc.

Putting all our eggs in one basket would be a huge mistake.

However, the Scarborough subway should be cancelled, yes, but that doesnt matter whether the DRL gets built or not. Its just a waste of money period.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
You're making up numbers.
Click to expand...
He might be, so is everyone else. The price won't be known, not even close to being known, until engineering and design studies are complete.

Let's keep something in mind though. No matter how much it does or doesn't cost, the City hasn't the money to build it. They don't even have the money (partly by choice of priorities) to study it!

The City can't even do a streetcar priority study right fer Crisakes. Keep your eyes on the provincial election. QP is where the decisions on this will be made, and even then, it's likely that just the concept will be touted by Metrolinx for private partners to develop it.
 
Last edited:
robmausser said:
Its not this simple.

Even if we fast tracked the DRL, it would take, 9 years vs 13, and cost twice as much.

Fast tracking isn't some magical wand you wave and then suddenly things happen faster. It means paying lots of people extra money for prioritizing work. Anytime you want something faster you pay the price.

There are also huge engineering feats for this subway. It will be lower in the ground and go under more high development complexes (big skyscrapers) than any subway has been done in Canada. Tons of things, like the Enwave water system, hydro, gas, sewer, etc will have to be relocated and dealt with. Just because you dig deep it doesnt solve every problem avoiding this, you need ventilation shafts, emergency exits, stations etc.

Funneling all our money will mean the DRL will now cost $12 billion, rather than $6, for the portion from Queen to Pape, and will be here in 2027 instead of 2031.

Great, now we don't have any other transit solutions in the interim, and meanwhile the Yonge subway is getting worse, worse, worse.

We need the DRL, as well as solutions now, and in the meantime, like ATC, GO RER with full fare integration, express buses, on and off peak pricing, etc.

Putting all our eggs in one basket would be a huge mistake.

However, the Scarborough subway should be cancelled, yes, but that doesnt matter whether the DRL gets built or not. Its just a waste of money period.
Click to expand...

I realize that. By 'fast track' I didn't mean they could instantly make it appear with a wave of their magic wand. For funding, I was referring to other subway projects being considered, not all transit projects, period.

Even if your numbers were correct, the cost is worth it. Completing this in 9 years instead of 13 makes a lot of sense. The overall cost of waiting is a lot higher than the monetary investment necessary to finish this at a much earlier date.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top